ChatterBank1 min ago
Size of the universe
Just been watching Brian Cox (Wonders of the Universe) and two questions arise :-
#1 Why does a documentary need music? Especially when it's often loud enough to make the speech difficult or impossible to understand !
#2 If the universe start as a speck smaller than a grain of sand approximately 13.5 billion years ago and is now 100 billion light years across then it must have expanded about 7 times faster than light - what am I missing?
#1 Why does a documentary need music? Especially when it's often loud enough to make the speech difficult or impossible to understand !
#2 If the universe start as a speck smaller than a grain of sand approximately 13.5 billion years ago and is now 100 billion light years across then it must have expanded about 7 times faster than light - what am I missing?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by roger. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
1. Because idiot Britain wouldn't watch it otherwise.
2. http://www.universeto...-big-is-the-universe/
2. http://www.universeto...-big-is-the-universe/
Wonders of the Universe did go over the top with music!
No you're absolutely right. It's believed that in the very early stages the Universe underwent a process called expansion. During this phase it grew very rapidly many many times faster than the speed of light.
Remember here we're not talking of galaxies exploding into space we're talking about space itself, physical dimensions growing - the rules of matter in the Universe simply don't apply to the fabric of the Universe itself
You might wonder why we think this - This work was first lead by a guy called Alan Guth, The problem is that the background radiation, the leftover remnant "noise" of the big bang is very even - this implies the Universe must have been connected at an early stage and inflation explains this.
It certainly wasn't an explanation people jumped at 30 years or so ago when it was first proposed but it's stood the test of time and gathered more evidense from satellite observations.
However it's not Universally accepted and there is a small but significant minority of scientists that don't like it and have different ideas
No you're absolutely right. It's believed that in the very early stages the Universe underwent a process called expansion. During this phase it grew very rapidly many many times faster than the speed of light.
Remember here we're not talking of galaxies exploding into space we're talking about space itself, physical dimensions growing - the rules of matter in the Universe simply don't apply to the fabric of the Universe itself
You might wonder why we think this - This work was first lead by a guy called Alan Guth, The problem is that the background radiation, the leftover remnant "noise" of the big bang is very even - this implies the Universe must have been connected at an early stage and inflation explains this.
It certainly wasn't an explanation people jumped at 30 years or so ago when it was first proposed but it's stood the test of time and gathered more evidense from satellite observations.
However it's not Universally accepted and there is a small but significant minority of scientists that don't like it and have different ideas
As a rule of thumb, if something is obviously stupid, chances are it's exactly that.
Dark matter, for instance - makes up the bulk of the universe in order to make the theories work, but there's no more proof of its existence than there is of the tooth fairy. duh!
The big bang and the grain of sand bit likewise.
These cockeyed ideas should go the way of phlogiston.
Dark matter, for instance - makes up the bulk of the universe in order to make the theories work, but there's no more proof of its existence than there is of the tooth fairy. duh!
The big bang and the grain of sand bit likewise.
These cockeyed ideas should go the way of phlogiston.
Ah venator - you do suffer from "telegraphitis"
It's a condition suffered by many middle class mainly sucessful males of a certain age.
It's symptoms are excess belief in "Common Sense" over experts.
I don't suppose you happen to be a graduate of the "school of life".
Unfortunately your common sense was acquired in a small section of the Universe with average speeds and average tempratures and the Universe just isn't like that!
Do you perhaps suppose that time doesn't slow down with speed or gravity? (more phlogiston?) because Satnavs wouldn't work without correcting for the slowing down of time.
Electrons do magically disappear and reappear - there are devices called tunnel diodes that rely on this - you may have one in your PC
But don't take my word for it - try this
Take two pairs of polarising sunglasses and hold them at right angles to each other - no light will get through
You expected that didn't you?
Now put another between the two at 45 degrees - now you will see light
Welcome to the world of quantum wierdness!
It's a condition suffered by many middle class mainly sucessful males of a certain age.
It's symptoms are excess belief in "Common Sense" over experts.
I don't suppose you happen to be a graduate of the "school of life".
Unfortunately your common sense was acquired in a small section of the Universe with average speeds and average tempratures and the Universe just isn't like that!
Do you perhaps suppose that time doesn't slow down with speed or gravity? (more phlogiston?) because Satnavs wouldn't work without correcting for the slowing down of time.
Electrons do magically disappear and reappear - there are devices called tunnel diodes that rely on this - you may have one in your PC
But don't take my word for it - try this
Take two pairs of polarising sunglasses and hold them at right angles to each other - no light will get through
You expected that didn't you?
Now put another between the two at 45 degrees - now you will see light
Welcome to the world of quantum wierdness!
Sometimes the loud and usually utterly inappropriate background music is distracting enough to make me turn off even the most fascinating programme. If the subject-matter is not exciting enough, bad music is not going to make it so. Surely, if people want music when a serious documentary is on, they can play their own music , can't they ? Even very exciting programmes, such as Real Cops, have stupid music running all through.
I am any day now expecting the BBC radio 4 news to launch into music to accompany ( and drown) the speech.
I am any day now expecting the BBC radio 4 news to launch into music to accompany ( and drown) the speech.
To answer the first question - because Brian Cox (and presumably the producers and other people involved in it) wanted the series to be a cinematic experience. So they put in the music and the stupendous photography. Personally I found the first programme in the series so enthralling I fell asleep half way through it and never bothered to watch the rest.
I've never really understood the need for music in ANY film, unless it happens to be a musical, of course! We don't go about accompanied by appropriate music in real life, do we?
There was a classic moment in 'High Anxiety', when the central character, Mel Brooks, was being driven along an American highway considering some highly-dramatic situation. The background music started growing to a crescendo, in tune with his mood, and we understood why a moment later. The car was being overtaken by a musician-filled coach with, on its side, the words 'Boston Symphony Orchestra'!
I think Mel was making much the same point I am.
There was a classic moment in 'High Anxiety', when the central character, Mel Brooks, was being driven along an American highway considering some highly-dramatic situation. The background music started growing to a crescendo, in tune with his mood, and we understood why a moment later. The car was being overtaken by a musician-filled coach with, on its side, the words 'Boston Symphony Orchestra'!
I think Mel was making much the same point I am.
Well Venator was acting the idiot and holding fort on things he clearly knows little about.
Example:
There is no more proof of dark matter than the tooth fairy
Wrong!
Dark matter shows itself by it's gravitational effects and there is a lot of observational evidence for it
It is dark because it doesn't emit light and can't be directly observed
Venator clearly has a hang up with people knowing more about things than he does - anything he doesn't understand is nonsense and experts are fools
unfortunatly his best example (phogistan) is 250 years old
Frankly I don't mind crossing swords on News or Society or religion but I come onto the Science forum to try and share some of the fabulous mind bending things that we now know about the Universe with people who never got beyond Newton - I know the work that went into them and how careful researchers are.
So I do get a bit annoyed when people dismiss things they don't understand as cock-eyed
There is a certain arrogance that thinks that "If it doesn't make sense to me it must be wrong because I couldn't be" that I feel needs challenging
Example:
There is no more proof of dark matter than the tooth fairy
Wrong!
Dark matter shows itself by it's gravitational effects and there is a lot of observational evidence for it
It is dark because it doesn't emit light and can't be directly observed
Venator clearly has a hang up with people knowing more about things than he does - anything he doesn't understand is nonsense and experts are fools
unfortunatly his best example (phogistan) is 250 years old
Frankly I don't mind crossing swords on News or Society or religion but I come onto the Science forum to try and share some of the fabulous mind bending things that we now know about the Universe with people who never got beyond Newton - I know the work that went into them and how careful researchers are.
So I do get a bit annoyed when people dismiss things they don't understand as cock-eyed
There is a certain arrogance that thinks that "If it doesn't make sense to me it must be wrong because I couldn't be" that I feel needs challenging
1 to 10 of 10
